Quadro P2200 vs FirePro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M2000 with Quadro P2200, including specs and performance data.
P2200 outperforms M2000 by a whopping 2106% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1093 | 238 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.29 | 22.25 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Turks | GP106 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (12 years ago) | 10 June 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1493 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 4,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 119.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 3.822 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 40 |
| TMUs | 24 | 80 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 201 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | chip-down | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 160 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1251 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 200.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 9
−2011%
| 190−200
+2011%
|
| Full HD | 16
−2088%
| 350−400
+2088%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2067%
|
130−140
+2067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2011%
|
190−200
+2011%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2088%
|
700−750
+2088%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−2100%
|
550−600
+2100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1900%
|
300−310
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2067%
|
130−140
+2067%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2011%
|
190−200
+2011%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2100%
|
110−120
+2100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2088%
|
700−750
+2088%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2067%
|
65−70
+2067%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1900%
|
300−310
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−2067%
|
130−140
+2067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2011%
|
190−200
+2011%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2100%
|
110−120
+2100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2088%
|
700−750
+2088%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−2067%
|
130−140
+2067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2067%
|
130−140
+2067%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1900%
|
300−310
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−2067%
|
130−140
+2067%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
This is how FirePro M2000 and Quadro P2200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P2200 is 2011% faster in 900p
- Quadro P2200 is 2088% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.10 | 24.27 |
| Recency | 1 July 2012 | 10 June 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 5 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 75 Watt |
FirePro M2000 has 127.3% lower power consumption.
Quadro P2200, on the other hand, has a 2106.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 400% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P2200 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M2000 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro P2200 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
